Hi folks! I use a 70-200mm f2.8 for outdoor portraits (weddings, other live events). A 135mm f2 would be a redundant range. Do I gain anything "significant" other than an extra stop of light? As in, is the image quality so extraordinarily better that there's no concern of "lens overlap?" I've heard marvelous things about the 135/2 and it's currently temptingly cheap. Does anyone have both lenses and find that they reach for one or the other more frequently? Thanks!
buying advice: get a 135mm f2, or use existing 70-200mm f2.8?
- Thread starter dash2k8
- Start date
For sports and general use, I choose the 70-200 f/2.8 over the 135. The convenience of the focal length range wins out. For portraits or for low light events (if the focal length suits the venue), the 135 will be chosen. The 70-200 is is one my two most use lenses, the 135 is not. The 135 has better bokeh (smoother, less nervous) and the extra stop can be helpful. But really what it comes down to, is whether your money would be better spent on a 135 or the next piece of kit that you'd be interested in. For most, getting a lens that expands the focal length range is more useful that a more specialized lens that would get periodic use, but it really depends on you.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the reply. So in your opinion, the image quality of the 135mm isn't leaps and bounds better that will justify the purchase? I understand your suggestion of expanding focal range, but I have most of the range covered already (24 to 300) so now I'm focusing on increasing image quality over my existing lenses. I just don't want to buy a lens in a redundant range with no knock-out improvement on IQ. Thanks again!
Upvote
0
I have both the 135/2 and 70-200/2.8 II and use both frequently. I think IQ is similar, but f/2 definatly comes in handy for indoor sports and to better isolate your subject for portraits. I really love the bokeh of the 135, hard to beat.
Upvote
0
I have both, but find myself seldom using the 135. Its definitely a wonderful portrait lens, but the zoom makes the 70-200 so flexible that it overcomes most of the advantages of the 135.
Upvote
0
P
Pookie
Guest
If your business is portraiture then I'd suggest picking up the 135. I run a portrait studio and I own both the 135L and 70-200 II... they are great lenses. When going over the images of the day with clients... the 135L images always get picked first and are most often the real money makers. The 135L is one of my favorites and I could not work without at this point. It's also one of the cheapest of the L lenses out there... if you're making money with your business it really is a no-brainer.
Upvote
0
P
Pookie
Guest
dash2k8 said:
All of the above and quality of bokeh, 135L images "pop" compared to most... women gravitate towards that "look". There are a few lenses that do provide you that pop... for me; 85L II, 135L, 200mm f/2. When you cost compare, 135L wins!
Miranda is running for Miss California 2015 and this was her favorite from the entire days shoot. A 135L
Yumi at Shoreline... again, her favorite from a day when I shot with everything I had... even the 200mm.
Upvote
0
I end up using the 70-200 more, but really just because of the flexibility of the range (can't carry everything!). Whenever the 135 does come out though, I'm never disappointed. I'm not really sure what it is, except I'm sure it is NOT the extra stop. I think it is something about the bokeh quality seeming to give the subject more presence in the frame.
70-200 is more versatile, but for a specific shot where around 135mm is the right fov, I'd pick up the 135L every single time.
70-200 is more versatile, but for a specific shot where around 135mm is the right fov, I'd pick up the 135L every single time.
Upvote
0
I have and love both. I do concert photography with 4+ bodies (at the same time), and while I always have the 70-200 II out (my favorite lens), I often have the 135L out at the same time and use both (depending on circumstances). Like the 85L, it has it's own "look". The 70-200 II is no slouch when it comes to bokeh, but the 135L stands out even more.
Also, I had the 135L and at some point sold it to put funds toward another lens, and then bought it again later (and still have it).
Jason
Also, I had the 135L and at some point sold it to put funds toward another lens, and then bought it again later (and still have it).
Jason
Upvote
0
I owned a 135L for a week or so before I accidentally sold it...
But I think I want one again... and I have a 70-200 and a 85L mkii... and even though the focal length is redundant... that extra stop of light, plus ridiculous sharpness, plus a really nice bokeh... yeah... for me it is worth it.
Having said that... I'm in love with my 85L mkii right now... so I would only use the 135L in circumstances where the 85L would suffer... so movement.
AND... I've been shooting at really thin depths of field with good light lately... and I'm really fond of it. So f/2 or f/1.2 aren't simply for poor lighting... you can really bring out some magic mixing good light with thin dof.
But I think I want one again... and I have a 70-200 and a 85L mkii... and even though the focal length is redundant... that extra stop of light, plus ridiculous sharpness, plus a really nice bokeh... yeah... for me it is worth it.
Having said that... I'm in love with my 85L mkii right now... so I would only use the 135L in circumstances where the 85L would suffer... so movement.
AND... I've been shooting at really thin depths of field with good light lately... and I'm really fond of it. So f/2 or f/1.2 aren't simply for poor lighting... you can really bring out some magic mixing good light with thin dof.
Upvote
0
Looks like I'll be getting one despite having redundant focal length. I guess the final selling point was the separation of subject from background with the shallow DOF. The 70-200 already does a great job of that and it seems the 135 will do it one better. Sold!
BTW, someone asked about the tempting deal I'm referring to. I'm in the Hong Kong region and this lens is going for $900USD, which I understand is about $150 cheaper than B&H.
BTW, someone asked about the tempting deal I'm referring to. I'm in the Hong Kong region and this lens is going for $900USD, which I understand is about $150 cheaper than B&H.
Upvote
0
dash2k8 said:
That's quite ok for new one, but not terrific. I think we see sales for about same price quite often. And week ago I almost nailed refurb from Canon for about $680 after tax. Unfortunately sold out while I was trying to remember my password to Canon store
Hoping they'll place special price again for the New Year's eve. That's how I got my 70-200 2.8 II.
Upvote
0
I was in the same conundrum as you a couple years ago, so I'll give you my opinion.
I was lusting after this lens quite a bit, until I smartened up on a few things which helped in my decision to stick with just the 70-200.
-You only gain one extra stop with the 135. Now, if you're doing really low light work such as for sports where you need a high shutter speed, then this will be important. For me, I was mainly doing portraits in daytime, around sunrise/sunset, and also with strobes. Even for portraits, the 70-200 is better because it'll gain you several stops through IS since the subject isn't moving, whereas the 135 only gains you one stop.
-For most clients, they actually prefer to not have their backgrounds completely blown out. It seems photographers have hard ons for really small depth of field portraits, but in reality, most people out there don't like them. Of course, you can stop the 135 down to f16, but the 70-200 you already own can do that too. I've done comparisons before (such as f1.2 vs f8, f2 vs f11, etc) and the majority of clients prefer the look of a smaller aperture with more depth of field. It's nice to show a little of the background/environment. If you blow it out so much that you can't see what is in the background, you might as well have just shot it in studio. When I shot more wide open, I got comments/complaints such as "why are my ears out of focus". Photographers will inevitably say because they want you to focus on the eyes/face. Here's the thing: if you have to have a person's ears out of focus, not anything (aka everything) further away, in order to properly draw focus/attention to a photograph, you really need to take an introductory course in composition.
-The zoom comes in very handy. Often, I may be clicking well with the client, for instance I get her to laugh. If I'm zoomed in at 200, I can zoom out to 70 and get a different shot with more of her body as it naturally poses during the laughter. I can do the opposite too, quickly change to a more telephoto focal length. This can be done with cropping, but I'd rather keep all the pixels I can.
-Lack of IS on the 135. I know I already mentioned it, but it can help so much for portraits when the light starts to fall at the end of the day since our subjects are stationary.
-That "pop" that people talk about is nothing more than a combination of contrast/microcontrast and an in focus subject vs out of focus background. The 70-200 can do the latter easily (200 at f2.8 provides less depth of field than 135 at f2), and the former can be applied in post processing. Ask any photographer who's well versed in the topics of lenses/light/optics, and you'll find out the reason for "pop" is as listed above. It reminds me of those people who believe homeopathic medicine is something other than expensive water, that it has the "essence" or "memory" of the medication even though it's been diluted so much there's no chance of even a single molecule being in the solution.
Anyway, those ended up being my reasons for sticking with the 70-200. Hope it helps! Good luck!
I was lusting after this lens quite a bit, until I smartened up on a few things which helped in my decision to stick with just the 70-200.
-You only gain one extra stop with the 135. Now, if you're doing really low light work such as for sports where you need a high shutter speed, then this will be important. For me, I was mainly doing portraits in daytime, around sunrise/sunset, and also with strobes. Even for portraits, the 70-200 is better because it'll gain you several stops through IS since the subject isn't moving, whereas the 135 only gains you one stop.
-For most clients, they actually prefer to not have their backgrounds completely blown out. It seems photographers have hard ons for really small depth of field portraits, but in reality, most people out there don't like them. Of course, you can stop the 135 down to f16, but the 70-200 you already own can do that too. I've done comparisons before (such as f1.2 vs f8, f2 vs f11, etc) and the majority of clients prefer the look of a smaller aperture with more depth of field. It's nice to show a little of the background/environment. If you blow it out so much that you can't see what is in the background, you might as well have just shot it in studio. When I shot more wide open, I got comments/complaints such as "why are my ears out of focus". Photographers will inevitably say because they want you to focus on the eyes/face. Here's the thing: if you have to have a person's ears out of focus, not anything (aka everything) further away, in order to properly draw focus/attention to a photograph, you really need to take an introductory course in composition.
-The zoom comes in very handy. Often, I may be clicking well with the client, for instance I get her to laugh. If I'm zoomed in at 200, I can zoom out to 70 and get a different shot with more of her body as it naturally poses during the laughter. I can do the opposite too, quickly change to a more telephoto focal length. This can be done with cropping, but I'd rather keep all the pixels I can.
-Lack of IS on the 135. I know I already mentioned it, but it can help so much for portraits when the light starts to fall at the end of the day since our subjects are stationary.
-That "pop" that people talk about is nothing more than a combination of contrast/microcontrast and an in focus subject vs out of focus background. The 70-200 can do the latter easily (200 at f2.8 provides less depth of field than 135 at f2), and the former can be applied in post processing. Ask any photographer who's well versed in the topics of lenses/light/optics, and you'll find out the reason for "pop" is as listed above. It reminds me of those people who believe homeopathic medicine is something other than expensive water, that it has the "essence" or "memory" of the medication even though it's been diluted so much there's no chance of even a single molecule being in the solution.
Anyway, those ended up being my reasons for sticking with the 70-200. Hope it helps! Good luck!
Upvote
0
The 135L is an special an general Purpose Lens 
- stupid ?
No, i will buy one soon - because as a walkaround Setup my 24-70 lackst in Tele .
For Portraits it seems to be an really good Lens - also for playing with small DOF .
When i walk around - the complete Bag is heavy, so i use often my small Bag, the small and
relative light 135L could be taken too in a small extra Bag - not as much disturbing as an 70-200 .
The 70-200 f2.8 L is an outstanding Lens, but really heavy, so i use the f4 IS Version.
An 135L produces an special Look, an the Eyes where not on me as an Photographer.
( With big white Lens )
As written above, many bought the Lens - sell it - and bought it again : .
135mm is an absolut usefull Focal length too .
Lack of IS - for LowLight i miss often the fast Aperture, IS is nice, Tripod an Solution too.
I will buy it - as an addition in my Lens Setup.
Bernd
- stupid ?No, i will buy one soon - because as a walkaround Setup my 24-70 lackst in Tele .
For Portraits it seems to be an really good Lens - also for playing with small DOF .
When i walk around - the complete Bag is heavy, so i use often my small Bag, the small and
relative light 135L could be taken too in a small extra Bag - not as much disturbing as an 70-200 .
The 70-200 f2.8 L is an outstanding Lens, but really heavy, so i use the f4 IS Version.
An 135L produces an special Look, an the Eyes where not on me as an Photographer.
( With big white Lens )
As written above, many bought the Lens - sell it - and bought it again :
.135mm is an absolut usefull Focal length too .
Lack of IS - for LowLight i miss often the fast Aperture, IS is nice, Tripod an Solution too.
I will buy it - as an addition in my Lens Setup.
Bernd
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
